The Dutch Finance Minister who was a leader in the EU bailout of Cypress said that account confiscation is the new bailout model That means that...

The Dutch Finance Minister who was a leader in the EU bailout of Cypress said that account confiscation is the new bailout model That means that all bank accounts within the eurozone now are at risk Cypress was considered by Europeans as an offshore banking haven and banks employ 25 PERCENT of the entire workforce Massive layoffs have already begun causing even more woe for the Cypriots

Google has blocked Press TV and Hispan TV\'s access to their official accounts on the technology company\'s platforms, including YouTube and Gmail,...

Google has blocked Press TV and Hispan TV\'s access to their official accounts on the technology company\'s platforms, including YouTube and Gmail, without prior notice, citing âviolation of policiesâ.
âYour Google Account was disabled and canât be restored because it was used in a way that violates Googleâs policies,â Google said in a message that appears after Press TV tries to log into its account.

Martyred professor, Allameh Morteza Motahhari, was born on February 2, 1919 in the town of Fariman, 75 kilometers from the holy city of Mashhad. At...

Martyred professor, Allameh Morteza Motahhari, was born on February 2, 1919 in the town of Fariman, 75 kilometers from the holy city of Mashhad. At the age of twelve, he set off for Mashhad seminary to embark on learning the basics of Islamic sciences. In 1937, despite Reza Khanâs intense confrontation with clergymen and also opposition by some of his friends and relatives, he left for Qom seminary to complete his studies.
During 15 years of his stay in Qom, he benefited from the presence of Grand Ayatollah Borujerdi (in jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence), Imam Khomeini (12 years in the philosophy of Molla Sadra, gnosis, ethics and principles of jurisprudence) and Allameh Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaiee (in philosophy). He had also benefited from the presence of the late Ayatollah Haj Mirza Ali Aqa Shirazi in ethics and gnosis. Among other teachers of professor Motahhari mention can be made of the late Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hojjat (in principles of jurisprudence) and the late Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Mohaqqeqdamad (in jurisprudence). While he was in Qom, in addition to education, he participated in socio-political affairs as well and he was in contact with Fadaiyan-e-Eslam group.
In 1952, he migrated to Tehran though he was one of the renowned teachers and among the future hopes of the seminary. In Tehran, he taught at Marvi School and delivered well-researched speeches. In 1955, the first session of the exegesis of the holy Qurâan in the Students\\\' Islamic Association was held by professor Motahhari. In the same year, he began teaching at the faculty of divinity and Islamic teachings of Tehran University. In 1958-59 concurrent with the establishment of the Physicians\\\' Islamic Association, professor Motahhari was one of the main speakers of the Association and during 1961-1971 he was the only speaker of the Association leaving behind a number of important deliberations.
In 1962, with the start of Imam Khomeiniâs uprising, professor Motahhari accompanied him to the extent that one can consider the organizing of the June 5th uprising in Tehran and its coordination with Imam Khomeiniâs leadership as being indebted to him and his companions. Having given an enlightening speech against the Shah on Wednesday, 5th of June 1963, Ayatollah Motahhari was detained by the police at 1 a.m. and sent to the interim police headquarters and was imprisoned with a number of Tehrani clergymen. 43 days later, following the migration of Ulema from other provinces to Tehran and public pressure, he was freed together with other clergymen.
After the formation of groups called âMoâtalefe Eslamiâ, which was among the combatant groups of the time, Imam Khomeini called on martyr Motahhari to lead these groups along with a number of clergymen.
Following Imam Khomeini\\\'s exile, professor Motahhari and his companions shouldered a heavier responsibility. At that time, he wrote books covering social requirements and delivering speeches at universities, the Physicians\\\' Islamic Association and mosques. Professor Motahhari made a lot of ideological efforts to Islamicize the content of the movement and strongly fought against diversions and falsehoods. In 1967, he established Hosseinieh Ershad with the help of some friends.
In 1969, after releasing an announcement signed by him, Allameh Tabatabai and Ayatollah Haj Seyyed Abolfazl Mojtahed Zanjani calling for collection of aid for the displaced Palestinians and because of publicizing it during a speech in Hosseinieh Ershad, he was detained and held in solitary confinement for a short while. From 1970-72 he supervised publicity works by Al-jawad mosque where he was the main speaker until the mosque and the Hosseinieh were closed and professor Motahhari was detained for a while. Later, Ayatollah Motahhari gave speeches at Javid, Ark and a number of other mosques. After a while Javid mosque was also closed. Around the year 1974 he was forbidden to speak which lasted till the triumph of the Islamic revolution.
Presenting genuine Islamic ideology through teaching, speech and writing books were among the valuable activities of professor Motahhari reaching its climax particularly during the years 1972-78; since in those years the leftists had increased their propaganda and groups of leftist Muslims and also those with a hotchpotch of ideas had emerged. After Imam Khomeini, professor Motahhari was the first figure who found out the ideological deviation of the heads of the so-called âMojahedin-e-Khalqâ organization and prevented others from cooperating with them and even foresaw their change of ideology. In those years, upon Imam Khomeiniâs recommendation, professor Motahhari traveled to Qom twice a week to teach at its seminary where he taught important courses and at the same time he taught some courses at home in Tehran. In 1976, following an ideological dispute with a communist teacher of the faculty of divinity, he became retired prematurely. Furthermore; in those years Ayatollah Motahhari, in collaboration with some clergymen, established âJameye Rohaniat-e-Mobarezâ of Tehran hoping that such an institution would be gradually established in other cities as well.
Although professor Motahhariâs contact with Imam Khomeini continued after the Imamâs exile in France via letters and other means, in the year 1976 he managed to travel to the holy city of Najaf and consulted with Imam Khomeini on the important issues of the revolution and also seminaries. After the martyrdom of Ayatollah Seyyed Mostafa Khomeini and the start of the new phase of the Islamic revolution, professor Motahhari fully devoted himself to the revolution and hence played a fundamental role in all of its phases.
At the time of Imam Khomeiniâs stay in Paris, Ayatollah Motahhari traveled to France where he spoke with the Imam on the important issues of the revolution and it was then that Imam Khomeini urged him to shape the Islamic Revolution Council. Upon Imam Khomeiniâs return to Iran, he personally took the responsibility of the welcoming committee and till the victory of the revolution and after that he always acted as a supporter of the leader of the Islamic revolution and served as a kind and trusted advisor for him. But at 22:20 p.m. of Tuesday, 1st of May 1979 he was martyred by a grouplet called âForqanâ after leaving an ideological and political gathering. This caused profound sorrow and grief for Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Ummah who had a lot of hopes for this great manâs future.
There remain tens of works by Ayatollah Motahhari. These works deal with a variety of religious issues and offer responses to many of the important questions of religious society so much so that we can name his works as a reliable source concerning the Islamic ideology system.
Some of Imam Khomeiniâs Words on Martyr Allameh Morteza Motahhari
[Motahhari] was rare in Islamology and different Islamic and Qurâanic sciences. I have lost a very dear child. I am mourning for him who was one of the figures who was considered the fruit of my life. Martyrdom of this righteous child and immortal clergyman created a vacuum in the dear Islam that cannot be filled by any means.
Motahhari, who was rare in purifying spirit, the strength of belief and the power of speech, flew to the ethereal world, but the ill-wishers should know that his Islamic, scientific and philosophical personality wonât perish with his departure.
Motahhari was a dear child for me and a firm stronghold for the religious and scientific seminaries and a useful servant for people and country.
I recommend the students and the committed intellectuals not to let this dear professorâs books be forgotten by non-Islamic schemes.
In his short life, [Motahhari] left behind immortal works which stemmed from a wakeful conscience and a spirit filled with the love for religion. He embarked on educating and training the society with an eloquent style and an able thought in analyzing Islamic subjects and explaining philosophical facts with a popular diction and without uncertainty. His oral and written works are unexceptionally instructive and inspiring; and his advice and admonitions, which sprang from a heart filled with faith and belief, are useful both for the Ulema and the laymen.
Late Motahhari was an individual who had different aspects of personality; and few people have done the service to the young generation and others as Motahhari has done. All his works are unexceptionally good and I donât know anybody else whose works I could call unexceptionally good. His works are unexceptionally good and constructive for humans.
Professor Motahhari from the Viewpoint of Ayatollah Khamenei
Interview with the Supreme Leader on Martyr Motahhari
âI consider myself Mr. Motahhariâs pupilâ
As you know late professor Motahhari was a philosopher; the science sought by him was mostly the philosophical science. Later on; however, he got to the subjects of theology, i.e. he dealt with Islamic issues with new argumentation method of modern philosophy. But he spent most of his time on philosophical matters. He was considered the philosophical student of Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaiee. Thus what he maintains in theology is Hekmat Motaâaliah, i.e. the Philosophy of Molla Sadra.
His behaviour was like that of the mystics who would set out to find a perfect instructor. Basically his spiritual and moral condition was in such a way. He would search to know for example if a perfect elderly instructor is somewhere in the world, and he would go to him to stay by him. Indeed, spiritually, such a situation was fitting him. Yet he had found such a perfect instructor in Iran. He was absorbed in Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaiee. He was captivated by their love and regarded their scientific and mystic status very high.
Morally, late Motahhari was a prominent man; and a pure-hearted, enlightened, just, self-possessed and mature person. In his personal bonds with God he was a mystic, a man of Godâs remembrance, journey towards God and worship. He used to say: âI have learnt paying attention to and worship of God from my father.â
Professor Motahhari had a lot of historical information especially about the recent history, and particularly on the issues related to the Ulema, seminaries, scientific, spiritual, philosophical and mystic figures. These pieces of information were not registered in any book and are heard from the professors and great figures and kept in mind. Since he knew all professors and Ulema of Najaf, Samarra and Isfahan, he was well-informed about their events and he would talk of them in the gatherings and visits held on different occasions.
Supereme Leaderâs Words on Professor Motahhariâs Personality and Works
âAs time passes from his martyrdom, his spiritual and ideological works and bounties manifest more fresh dimensions. The ideological and scientific works of that grand clergyman become clearer in the scene of the country press and religious knowledge; and one understands that an intellectual clergyman with responsibilities could have so fruitful life.â
Martyr Motahhari with his strong and decent thought stepped in the fields of Islamic subjects that hitherto nobody had stepped; and considering the ideas that had prevailed or were going to prevail in the country---through translation and import from the west and east, he entered a profound, vast and interminable scientific challenge. He both embarked on a very clever struggle to confront with the Marxists and entered the scene to confront with the western and Liberalist thoughts. This role is very important; it needs both courage and self-confidence, it requires both thinking strength and Ijtihad (being well- qualified in jurisprudence and different theological fields), it both needs certainty and resolute belief. This great man had all these together; he was both a learned man and very faithful, he was firm in his belief and had self-confidence, too; these are all necessary.â
Leaderâs Visit with Martyr Motahhariâs Family (1996)
He had three characteristics regarding ideological issues: First, he had a strong thought and he was a true thinker. Secondly, while presenting and spreading the ideological principles, he had no intention but Godâs nearness, promotion of the truth and fighting against the false. There was sincerity in him and his personal actions which would naturally make the second characteristic tangible. For example think of some people who are thinkers, yet do not present their thought for Godâs sake, but they present it to show that they are knowledgeable, to draw peopleâs attention and to say that they are philosophers. Martyr Motahhari was not such. He would present thought for Godâs sake and for Islam. He would truly burn up [like a candle] and would gush forth [like a fountain] and would present [Islamic ideas]. The reason for his survival is his second characteristic. It means that sincerity will have its impact and the Almighty God will grace any deed done with sincerity. The third characteristic was his working hard and his inexhaustibility.
The truth is that he wouldnât sit till he might be referred to; but rather he would himself go after activity. He had these three characteristics.â
Leaderâs Visit with Martyr Motahhariâs Family (1998)
âWe should introduce Mr. Motahhari to the world especially the Islamic world. And if we want to introduce him, which points should be highlighted? I think this is your most important job. Some aspects of a figureâs personality are either unique that must be highlighted or are very outstanding that should be stressed.
In the life of the late Martyr Ayatollah Motahhari, his personality and his scientific identity there are numerous examples of these. One point, that in my opinion has the prime importance, is the new interpretation of the Islamic teachings. This is apart from his philosophical aspect and his strong and compelling arguments in the footnotes of âThe principles of philosophyâ by âAyatollah Tabatabaiee. This is another point. He elucidated Islamic concepts and teachings with a novel diction and expression which was much needed. I donât say that if the works of the predecessors were pondered and scrutinized signs of this exegesis would not be found. Really if one had attentively studied the works of the Ulema he would have found some hints and cues; but I want to say that nobody had done this. As far as we know, nobody had done it before Mr. Motahhari. Even the modernist writers, who had emerged in the Arab countries, and we knew some of them, had not done this. These Egyptian authors, who were modernists and would write things with a broader sight and who knew the world somewhat more than Martyr Motahhari, most of them had traveled a lot and had visited different universities. Yet he [Ayatollah Motahhari] was not so, he was confined. I mean he was inside Iran and Tehran but his profound vision of the Islamic issues and his novel understanding of the verses [of Qurâan] and the narrations [of the Ahl-ul-Bayt], in my opinion, was one of his most outstanding aspects. It was he who, for the first time, substantively expressed the subjects related to principles of ideology, piety, patience, love, fairness, justice, and so on in the ideological atmosphere of Iran.
We thank God that Mr. Motahhariâs name was not forgotten in our society and the mental atmosphere of this country; but rather it became more prominent day by day. Many of the world phenomena are naturally perishable and by the lapse of time they become older. Most of the world phenomena are such. Yet there are some phenomena that not only do not fall into oblivion via lapse of time but become brighter, more manifest, more spectacular and more impressive. The phenomena based on reality are usually such. I clearly feel that, thank God, Martyr Ayatollah Motahhariâs thoughts are such.â
Memoirs of Dr. Ali Motahhari (Martyr Motahhariâs Son)
Night Supplication in front of the Word Allah
As it is said he didnât give up midnight vigilance, midnight prayer, and wakefulness since his youth till the end of his life. It was his practice both at the time of studentship and after that and even at the time of martyrdom. I remember that facing our house there was the house of one of the previous regimeâs officials which was usually guarded by two police officers. Apparently since the official had seen that the lamp of our house was lit at midnight, had worried to find the reason and it was important for him from the security point of view. He had told the guards to look for the reason. Professor [Motahhari] had a neon board of Allah which was green when lit. He would turn it on and perform his midnight prayer in its light. After the revolution one of the officers said, we had examined several nights and I had looked through the window to see what was going on inside the house. At the end I myself saw that he came at midnight and started worshipping for an hour. We were somehow absorbed by the professor, and despite much negative propaganda against the clergymen and him in particular to make us pessimist to them, we became very interested in him so much so that some would say we got our salary from the government but it was as if we were guarding him.
A Voice vis-Ă -vis MHe was very sensitive against ideological deviations and believed that we were seeking Islamic revolution and not mere revolution. It is not important that Shah goes but it is important to see what system is established after his going. Because if after the ouster of the Shah, for example the Mojahedin-e-Khalq take the lead, it is much better not to stage a revolution at all. Thus the deviated groups had found out professor Motahhariâs sensitiveness and had become his enemy. Three or four months before the victory of the Islamic revolution, a person, who had some tendencies to Mojahedin-e-Khalq and the leftists and was intended to be religious, too, was freed from the prison. Professor [Motahhari] said we had better visit him. I was with the professor. There was a man by the name of Ashuri as one of the heads of the Forqan group. He spoke of Islam and Marxism and said: âThese two religions say one single thing and their content is the same with different forms. They speak of the laborers and we speak of the oppressed. Therefore our word is the same. We should unite to topple the regime of Shah and basically there is no difference between Islam and Marxism, etc.â Professor was very upset and that man knew that professor Motahhari would answer him. Thatâs why he rose to leave. The professor said: âNo, Be seated! Be seated!â He made him sit and explained him in detail that our path is fundamentally separate from that of the Marxists. In no way can the forms be different with the same content. And we cannot unite with the Marxists in any way.
Immortal among People
Prior to the victory of the Islamic revolution, at the time of Imam Khomeiniâs staying in Paris, it was heard everywhere that the regime of Shah wanted to arrest the leaders and prominent figures of the revolution.
Some people told him [Ayatollah Motahhari] it was better to go somewhere else to hide. He said: âSuch actions are not good for clergymen. It is not good for us to escape from one place to another to hide; such things are not good for us.â He stayed at home like before and nothing happened.
His Method of Training Children
One of the features of the professorâs training method for his children was that he would never resort to force and coercion and he would let them to realize and choose the right path with their own thought and wisdom. About choosing the field of education and the way of spending leisure time and the like he would never force us to do something necessarily; but he would show us the way. As the holy Qurâan says: ââŠbe he grateful or ungrateful.â And it was we who would choose the way. There was never force over our heads and we would choose one way with interest and free will.
The Professorâs Arrest after anti-Israel Speech
I have another memory from the year 1969 when he delivered the provocative speech on Palestine in Hosseinieh Ershad. This speech has been broadcast many times by IRIB. It was a very provocative, important and interesting speech which shook the regime of Shah; and it required a lot of courage to deliver such a speech when the regime of Shah was in the zenith of power and had the highest level of relations and unity with Israel. When the Israeli planes would refuel in Iranâs airport(s) during the 1967 war and would fly over the heads of the Arabs and Muslims, much bravery was needed to give such a speech and we saw that professor Motahhari gave that speech and was promptly arrested and taken away. When he was freed he said, âThey made me sit in a car and blindfolded me and the car set out. I told them there is no need to blindfold and I will not look. If you want me not to look I will close my eyes. But they didnât agree. Yet I realized the route till Ferdowsi square but didnât realize after that.â Apparently they had taken him to the committee of the SAVAK which was presumably located in the same Ferdowsi Street.
Allameh Tabatabaieeâs Message on the Occasion of Ayatollah Motahhariâs Martyrdom
In the name of the Almighty God
In memory of a scientific and philosophical personality who cast a world into grief and made the world of science and merit mournful with his departure.
Late Motahhari, who was a scientist, a thinker and a researcher with an overflowing intellect, a bright thought and a realistic mind, has left behind marvelous works and researches written about scientific and argumentative purposes that are seen in his books.
Late Motahhari, through his precious and blissful life that was abundant with scientific effort and philosophical thinking, sends an expressive and valuable message to the enthusiasts of science and philosophy never to repose from effort towards perfection and never forget scientific struggle for perfection; and in the market of realities turn their life--which is the best human commodity-- to the spiritual lifeâ which is the lofty human life and is lasting till the world exists; and not to be absorbed and deceived by fabricated and imaginary personalities in this short life.
Yes, a narrow route opened by a scientist towards realities will bestow eternal life upon him and this is more valuable than the world and what it contains.

Representatives of over 20 foreign embassies in Lebanon received a detailed account of Israeli espionage activity in the country. Lebanese...

Representatives of over 20 foreign embassies in Lebanon received a detailed account of Israeli espionage activity in the country. Lebanese ministers and lawmakers briefed the foreign representatives during a closed meeting at the Lebanese parliament. One of the revelations made was that even foreign embassies, in addition to the UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, are also victims of Israeli espionage.

Remembering Imam Musa Al-Kadhim (A) on his martyrdom (according to one historical account). Ali Fani recited this lamentation about Imam Musa Kadhim. It is mixed with video footage depicting the captivity of Imam (A). The principled life of Imam Kadhim (A) is a role model for all of us.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the...

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didnât take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesnât fall? What if President Assad doesnât leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemyâs direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadershipâs plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the Peopleâs Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And donât you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didnât understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in peopleâs opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike â these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Letâs be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallahâs speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words âthe regime.â Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor âregime.â This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to âliberate Damascusâ and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didnât. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why havenât we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why havenât we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials â even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir â all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we havenât heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now whatâs important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israelâs agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israelâs involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesnât want escalation or doesnât intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israelâs support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israelâs objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didnât the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. Thatâs the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syriaâs retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I donât think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Donât you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The publicâs state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the armyâs engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahuâs visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why donât you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I havenât actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I donât know who proposed the initiative; I donât care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. Youâll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent â which doesnât include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldnât deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Letâs talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syriaâs conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesnât have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Letâs be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they donât want a role for al-Assad in Syriaâs future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I donât know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, thatâs fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldnât be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syriaâs relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they donât even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see whatâs happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Letâs start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasnât; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasnât. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. Iâm not criticizing the Lebanese government - Iâm talking about general principles. I donât want it to be said that Iâm criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanonâs policy of dissociation, we donât believe this is realistically possible. When my neighborâs house is on fire, I cannot say that itâs none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldnât have been able to succeed militarily if they hadnât been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanonâs strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a manâs intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanonâs weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanonâs strength lies in its strength. Lebanonâs strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we werenât so confident we wouldnât have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the...

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didnât take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesnât fall? What if President Assad doesnât leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemyâs direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadershipâs plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the Peopleâs Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And donât you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didnât understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in peopleâs opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike â these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Letâs be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallahâs speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words âthe regime.â Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor âregime.â This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to âliberate Damascusâ and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didnât. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why havenât we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why havenât we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials â even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir â all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we havenât heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now whatâs important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israelâs agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israelâs involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesnât want escalation or doesnât intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israelâs support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israelâs objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didnât the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. Thatâs the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syriaâs retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I donât think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Donât you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The publicâs state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the armyâs engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahuâs visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why donât you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I havenât actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I donât know who proposed the initiative; I donât care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. Youâll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent â which doesnât include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldnât deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Letâs talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syriaâs conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesnât have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Letâs be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they donât want a role for al-Assad in Syriaâs future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I donât know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, thatâs fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldnât be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syriaâs relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they donât even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see whatâs happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Letâs start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasnât; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasnât. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. Iâm not criticizing the Lebanese government - Iâm talking about general principles. I donât want it to be said that Iâm criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanonâs policy of dissociation, we donât believe this is realistically possible. When my neighborâs house is on fire, I cannot say that itâs none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldnât have been able to succeed militarily if they hadnât been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanonâs strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a manâs intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanonâs weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanonâs strength lies in its strength. Lebanonâs strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we werenât so confident we wouldnât have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey...

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey (Zionists) don't allow anyone to freely discuss the historical events that happened. They just say this is our account of history, this is what happened and everybody else must just accept it,â said Ahmadinejad.
Larry King then asked the president if, from his point of view, the Holocaust did not happen.
âNo, what I am saying is let more research be done," Ahmedinejad said.
"There is a claim about the extent of the calamity. There are people who agree with it and people who disagree. Some totally deny and some completely agree with the whole given account. What we are saying is that an impartial group should be formed to conduct an independent study on the extent of the calamity.â
On December 2005, Ahmadinejad made several comments about the Holocaust, criticizing European laws against research on the historical event.
Following his remarks, Western politicians and media outlets launched extensive attacks against him, accusing him of anti-Semitism.
However, during his interview with Larry King, Ahmedinejad denied this.
"Iranians and have nothing against the Jewish people or their religion," Ahmedinejad said.
Ahmedinejad differentiated between Zionism and Judaism saying that Zionists are not real Jews.
"How can you be religious and kill women and children at the same time?â he argued.
King also asked Ahmadinejad to confirm or deny whether he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".
Ahmedinejad replied saying that the Israeli regime would disappear in the same way as apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union.
âThe solution that we are proposing is a humanitarian one. What we say is that a free referendum must be held in the Palestinian territories, allowing the Palestinian people to determine their own fate," Ahmadinejad said.
Interview of President of Iran Ahmedi Nijad on CNN by Larry King on various political issues

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey...

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey (Zionists) don't allow anyone to freely discuss the historical events that happened. They just say this is our account of history, this is what happened and everybody else must just accept it,â said Ahmadinejad.
Larry King then asked the president if, from his point of view, the Holocaust did not happen.
âNo, what I am saying is let more research be done," Ahmedinejad said.
"There is a claim about the extent of the calamity. There are people who agree with it and people who disagree. Some totally deny and some completely agree with the whole given account. What we are saying is that an impartial group should be formed to conduct an independent study on the extent of the calamity.â
On December 2005, Ahmadinejad made several comments about the Holocaust, criticizing European laws against research on the historical event.
Following his remarks, Western politicians and media outlets launched extensive attacks against him, accusing him of anti-Semitism.
However, during his interview with Larry King, Ahmedinejad denied this.
"Iranians and have nothing against the Jewish people or their religion," Ahmedinejad said.
Ahmedinejad differentiated between Zionism and Judaism saying that Zionists are not real Jews.
"How can you be religious and kill women and children at the same time?â he argued.
King also asked Ahmadinejad to confirm or deny whether he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".
Ahmedinejad replied saying that the Israeli regime would disappear in the same way as apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union.
âThe solution that we are proposing is a humanitarian one. What we say is that a free referendum must be held in the Palestinian territories, allowing the Palestinian people to determine their own fate," Ahmadinejad said.
Interview of President of Iran Ahmedi Nijad on CNN by Larry King on various political issues

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey...

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey (Zionists) don't allow anyone to freely discuss the historical events that happened. They just say this is our account of history, this is what happened and everybody else must just accept it,â said Ahmadinejad.
Larry King then asked the president if, from his point of view, the Holocaust did not happen.
âNo, what I am saying is let more research be done," Ahmedinejad said.
"There is a claim about the extent of the calamity. There are people who agree with it and people who disagree. Some totally deny and some completely agree with the whole given account. What we are saying is that an impartial group should be formed to conduct an independent study on the extent of the calamity.â
On December 2005, Ahmadinejad made several comments about the Holocaust, criticizing European laws against research on the historical event.
Following his remarks, Western politicians and media outlets launched extensive attacks against him, accusing him of anti-Semitism.
However, during his interview with Larry King, Ahmedinejad denied this.
"Iranians and have nothing against the Jewish people or their religion," Ahmedinejad said.
Ahmedinejad differentiated between Zionism and Judaism saying that Zionists are not real Jews.
"How can you be religious and kill women and children at the same time?â he argued.
King also asked Ahmadinejad to confirm or deny whether he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".
Ahmedinejad replied saying that the Israeli regime would disappear in the same way as apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union.
âThe solution that we are proposing is a humanitarian one. What we say is that a free referendum must be held in the Palestinian territories, allowing the Palestinian people to determine their own fate," Ahmadinejad said.
Interview of President of Iran Ahmedi Nijad on CNN by Larry King on various political issues

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey...

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey (Zionists) don't allow anyone to freely discuss the historical events that happened. They just say this is our account of history, this is what happened and everybody else must just accept it,â said Ahmadinejad.
Larry King then asked the president if, from his point of view, the Holocaust did not happen.
âNo, what I am saying is let more research be done," Ahmedinejad said.
"There is a claim about the extent of the calamity. There are people who agree with it and people who disagree. Some totally deny and some completely agree with the whole given account. What we are saying is that an impartial group should be formed to conduct an independent study on the extent of the calamity.â
On December 2005, Ahmadinejad made several comments about the Holocaust, criticizing European laws against research on the historical event.
Following his remarks, Western politicians and media outlets launched extensive attacks against him, accusing him of anti-Semitism.
However, during his interview with Larry King, Ahmedinejad denied this.
"Iranians and have nothing against the Jewish people or their religion," Ahmedinejad said.
Ahmedinejad differentiated between Zionism and Judaism saying that Zionists are not real Jews.
"How can you be religious and kill women and children at the same time?â he argued.
King also asked Ahmadinejad to confirm or deny whether he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".
Ahmedinejad replied saying that the Israeli regime would disappear in the same way as apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union.
âThe solution that we are proposing is a humanitarian one. What we say is that a free referendum must be held in the Palestinian territories, allowing the Palestinian people to determine their own fate," Ahmadinejad said.
Interview of President of Iran Ahmedi Nijad on CNN by Larry King on various political issues

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey...

In a recorded Tuesday interview with the renowned TV host, President Ahmadinejad said that Zionism blocks research on the Holocaust.
âThey (Zionists) don't allow anyone to freely discuss the historical events that happened. They just say this is our account of history, this is what happened and everybody else must just accept it,â said Ahmadinejad.
Larry King then asked the president if, from his point of view, the Holocaust did not happen.
âNo, what I am saying is let more research be done," Ahmedinejad said.
"There is a claim about the extent of the calamity. There are people who agree with it and people who disagree. Some totally deny and some completely agree with the whole given account. What we are saying is that an impartial group should be formed to conduct an independent study on the extent of the calamity.â
On December 2005, Ahmadinejad made several comments about the Holocaust, criticizing European laws against research on the historical event.
Following his remarks, Western politicians and media outlets launched extensive attacks against him, accusing him of anti-Semitism.
However, during his interview with Larry King, Ahmedinejad denied this.
"Iranians and have nothing against the Jewish people or their religion," Ahmedinejad said.
Ahmedinejad differentiated between Zionism and Judaism saying that Zionists are not real Jews.
"How can you be religious and kill women and children at the same time?â he argued.
King also asked Ahmadinejad to confirm or deny whether he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".
Ahmedinejad replied saying that the Israeli regime would disappear in the same way as apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union.
âThe solution that we are proposing is a humanitarian one. What we say is that a free referendum must be held in the Palestinian territories, allowing the Palestinian people to determine their own fate," Ahmadinejad said.
Interview of President of Iran Ahmedi Nijad on CNN by Larry King on various political issues

Israeli soldiers killed two Palestinian youths on Saturday during a demonstration in their village, Iraq Burin. The Israeli army then issued a...

Israeli soldiers killed two Palestinian youths on Saturday during a demonstration in their village, Iraq Burin. The Israeli army then issued a statement alleging its soldiers only used rubber-coated steel bullets in the village. But doctors and human rights organisations say their evidence disproves this account. And Al Jazeera has obtained pictures with the clear sound of gunfire, taken by an activist who was at the incident. With such evidence, the army will now be taking a second look at its soldiers account of events.

Although a new study has doubled the US war costs, it does not account for the enormous subsequent expenses for the injured troops, a US analyst...

Although a new study has doubled the US war costs, it does not account for the enormous subsequent expenses for the injured troops, a US analyst says.
"The cost of taking care of [the injured troops] âŠ has not really been taken into account seriously, either by economists or by political figures in the United States," historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter told Press TV on Thursday.
The new study, conducted by the Nobel Prize winner for economics Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University Professor Linda Bilmes, shows that the long-term costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq doubles initial estimates, suggesting the revised six-trillion-dollar figure.
The analyst also warned that "the institutional interests of the military itself [is] so enormous that the [US] military is absolutely determined to avoid an end to this war any time soon."
Porter called on the people and the politicians in the United States to take action to make their government bring the wars to an end.
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/144762.html
****************
Wars could cost over $4 trillion
Authors of the book The Three Trillion Dollar War now estimate that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could top $4 trillion over time. A lagging economy, increases in the cost of medical care, higher than expected expenditures on post-combat medical and psychiatric care, and a surge in disability benefits are likely to place a significant strain on the federal budget.
House Veterans Affairs Chairman, Bob Filner (D-California), stated:
"This may be more of a crisis than the Medicare and Social Security problems we have looming...It rivals both in the potential impact. This is another entitlement we've committed ourselves to, and it could break the bank."
Filner aims on utilizing the latest cost estimates to propose a "veterans trust fund" to pay for the long-term war expenses, a proposal that has so far found minimal support in the Democratic-led House due to the startling price tag associated with it.
Having already blown past original cost projections, combat operations alone in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have cost nearly $1.1 trillion in nine years. With well over 30,000 maimed for life, a PTSD epidemic, and record suicide rates (in the military), an estimated price tag of at least $4 trillion over the next several years appears to be reasonable.
As a result, those who claim to be fiscally conservative should take a long hard look at the immense cost of open-ended, overseas wars, especially at a time when America could be facing a debt crisis in the not-too-distant future. Vague objectives, shifting benchmarks, imprecise definitions of victory, and unclear exit strategies inevitably lead to costs that far exceed initial budget estimates.
In addition, those who claim to espouse a more progressive, anti-war stance should take a long hard look at the current war policy, as the trillions being spent could be better invested in infrastructure, health care, education, alternative energy, and other domestic programs. Perhaps the strategy of electing leaders who espouse peace, fiscal responsibility, and change in U.S. foreign policy, yet intensify wars, spend even more on the military, and adopt much of their despised opponents' previous platform, should be more critically examined.
http://caivn.org/article/2010/09/30/wars-could-cost-over-4-trillion

In this edition of the show Susan interviews Karen Greenberg, author of The Least Worst Place.
In her recent book The Least Worst Place, she...

In this edition of the show Susan interviews Karen Greenberg, author of The Least Worst Place.
In her recent book The Least Worst Place, she offers a gripping narrative account of the first one hundred days of Guantanamo.
Greenberg, one of America's leading experts on the Bush Administration's policies on terrorism, tells the story through a group of career officers who tried and ultimately failed to stymie the Pentagon's desire to implement harsh new policies in Guantanamo and bypass the Geneva Conventions.
She outlines how the US has systematically violated all rules and norms of the Geneva Conventions and has made Guantanamo a lawless prison camp.
In this narrative of the earliest days of the post-9/11 era centers on the conflicts Gitmo-based Marine officers confess about faulty intelligence.
Ultimately from Bush to Obama transparency is replaced with secrecy, military protocol with violations of basic operation procedures, and humane and legal detainee treatment with harsh interrogation methods and torture.
Greenberg's riveting account puts a human face on this little-known story, revealing how America first lost its moral bearings in the wake of 9/11

Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei thanked the Iranian people Saturday for their enthusiastic participation in the annual...

Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei thanked the Iranian people Saturday for their enthusiastic participation in the annual February 11 rallies and confirmed that the Islamic Revolution chiefly gets momentum from the zeal courage and revolutionary resolve of the Iranian nation and their solid adherence to the revolution and its religious identity The serving and honest authorities must not relinquish the move forward even for a moment specially taking the huge popular strength and ample human resources into account Ayatollah Khamenei said in his speech to an audience of people urging the authorities to head for conquering the high peaks in different fields

A segment from the documentary - We - where Arundhati Roy - the writer and activist - talks about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in...

A segment from the documentary - We - where Arundhati Roy - the writer and activist - talks about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the world. See the entire documentary at www.weroy.org. Roys comments in this segment end at a very insightful point where she says that both socialism and market capitalism are inherently flawed and are bound to fail. Because both are conjured up by the human-mind but they destroy themselves by human nature! I am reminded here of Shaheed Sadrs profound analysis at the beginning of his book - Our Philosophy. Any social system that does not take into account the various dimensions of human nature - including the material and the spiritual - any system that does not have a program for curing the problems in hearts and for developing the good potentials in human souls and only focuses upon the material factors is bound to fail - be they the socialist states or the welfare systems in capitalist economies. The strength and beauty of Islam is in its comprehensive-ness - in its comprehensive and wholistic guiding principles for all dimensions of human nature and for both individual lives and collective issues of society.

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and...

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and...

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and...

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and...

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and...

September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.

The coward soldier runs away from the palestinian child stones, thouh he holds in hands the best US weapons :)
Pappe, an Israeli historian...

The coward soldier runs away from the palestinian child stones, thouh he holds in hands the best US weapons :)
Pappe, an Israeli historian and a senior lecturer at Haifa University, has written a superb account of the Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians from their land in 1948. He says that between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians. The Israeli leadership stated, "The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."
Overall, the Zionist forces uprooted more than half Palestine's population, 800,000 people, destroyed 531 villages and emptied eleven urban neighbourhoods of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that this was "a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity."
Casualties (figures in parenthesis indicate the total figure since the beginning of the intifada)
According to B'Tselem's research, from January to December 27, 2006, Israeli security forces killed 660 (4005) Palestinians in the Occupied Territories VS. 16 israeli civilians...
WHO IS THE TERRORIST??? Who killed 16 civilians or who killed 660 civilians??

TheMuslimTV.net is founded to provide a source of education to facilitate understanding between contemporary Islamic thought and the world
by monitoring, procuring, translating, studying, sharing and preserving all relevant media, cultural material, literature, speeches, discussions, debates, & talks.
We aim to promote education and understanding while building a historic archive relating to contemporary Islamic thought. TheMuslimTV.net does not claim ownership
to any of the contents and may not necessarily agree with points of views expressed in any of the media.